EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Depreciation claim 3. Deduction and deposit of TDS 4. Deduction under Chapter VIA 5. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 6. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

3. In this case, assessee had filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014 for A.Y.2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.1,87,17,250/-. Subsequently, assessee has also filed revised ITA No.998/PUN/2023[R]&C.O.No.4/PUN/2024 [A] CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited AY 2014-15 return of income on 16.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

3. Alternatively and without prejudice to the ground of Appeal No.2 hereinabove the addition be reduced to the reasonable extent by applying correct interpretation of Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Appellant craves the rights to add, delete, modify, alter any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2054/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tata Technologies Limited, The Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.25, Phase I, Rajiv Vs Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaactg 3092 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafana & Smt.Chandni Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Moray - Dr Date Of Hearing 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune Dated 30.10.2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 U/S 143(3)Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act. The Appellant Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao, Following The Directions Of The Ld. Drp, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo In Rejecting The Alp Computation Undertaken By The Appellant For Benchmarking The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment Of Commission, Thereby Making A Tp Adjustment Of Rs.5,79,53,349 In The Software Distribution Segment.

14A 2,38,39,470/- 2.1. Aggrieved by the same the Assessee filed an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The DRP issued directions on 19/09/2019. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed this appeal. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We will discuss ground wise each ground. 4. Ground Number 1 to 3

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section of 90 of the Act of INR 48,97,620 over

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

3 (iii) Disallowance on account of interest on TDS & Service Tax of Rs.12,715/-. (iv) Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rs.21,16,195/-. (v) Disallowance of depreciation on cars of Rs.2,79,725/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances/additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the disallowance

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (2) of sec. 14A of the Act could be invoked only if the ld. O having regard to the accounts of the assessee, was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide its order dated 11.09.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition. Considering the directions

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide its order dated 11.09.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition. Considering the directions